5 ms·

A shopping center without parking is almost always less valuable than one with parking. Yet, Georgists think that a shopping center without parking, one with p

by anamax 4y ago

A shopping center without parking is almost always less valuable than one with parking. Yet, Georgists think that a shopping center without parking, one with parking, and a parking lot should all be taxed the same.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Taxing people for doing good things disincentivizes people from doing good things. Taxes shouldn't be a punishment for being successful. Georgists think real estate should be taxes based off the unimproved value of the land, what the owners do with the land is up to them, but if they don't use it well their taxes will put them underwater and someone else will make better use of it.
- anamax 4y ago
  My point is that parking lots can easily be the best use.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    If parking lots are the best use the LVT will be low enough to be negligible. If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.
    - anamax 4y ago
      > If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure. In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"? As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        I mean tbh we just have a paradigm difference. IMO there is no such thing as not enough parking lots. They're wasteful eyesores that encourage a horrible externality.
        anamax 4y ago
        And yet, shopping centers with parking lots do more business than shopping centers without parking. You may like a life where you're dependent on delivery services for anything you can't carry to where it needs to go but the rest of us aren't willing to wear that hair shirt.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        If a shopping center needs more parking and doesn't want to pay more LVT they can build a parking garage. That way the land next door can be used more productively. If building the garage is too expensive then the land was never that valuable to begin with and they can afford the lvt.
        anamax 4y ago
        Why would they do that? You've already stated that an essential part of your plan is eliminating parking lots. You think that a world without parking lots, a world where people mostly carry stuff and otherwise rely on delivery services, is best. Aren't you going to at least followup with "people buy too much stuff anyway, so shopping centers that sell less are better."? Surely you can defend your vision instead of just giving up when someone summarizes it.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        In the end my vision doesn't matter. If you can agree that land speculation is bad you can agree that LVT is good. People should not make money for owning empty land that they do nothing with, it's really that simple.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Okay, let's assume land is expensive and you do need the parking lots. Georgism just tells you, please use the land more efficiently. Underground parking or a multi story garage become profitable as they reduce the amount of land being used and therefore reduces land value taxes you have to pay. Ethical tax avoidance!
    - anamax 4y ago
      You do know that you're substituting expensive parking for cheap, right? However, you are demonstrating that Georgist "efficient land use" is not particularly desirable. (Moreover, "efficient" land use is rarely that important.) Georgism does push towards a monoculture and a particularly horrible one at that. For example, Georgism punishes someone who puts some open space between buildings, even though open-space is clearly a good thing. As I wrote previous, Georgists confuse having an equation that they can "optimize" with having a useful idea on how to allocate resources in the real world. Yes, Georgism lets you do some calculations, but that doesn't imply that doing those calculations is worthwhile. (This is a problem with economics as a field.) And, no, the "witticisms" don't make your case. They actually argue that Georgists are dangerous fools.
imtringued 4y ago
You mean Georgists think that taxes on all of those should be $0? Yes, that is the entire point of Georgism, only the land is taxed because land can be used for anything and if the land value is higher than the shopping center can afford, then it means people want something more valuable than a shopping center there.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  > the land value I think this is the key issue that gets glossed over. Who decides the land value? How is that decision arrived at? Is it a purely bureaucratic process where the community has no say? Is it set at a federal level where it will likely be completely disconnected from the reality of a particular municipality? A lot would hinge on the answers to these questions and I'd take a bet that if this were ever implemented it would be done wrong and would result in many unforeseen negative outcomes. I think we should stop trying to revive outdated 19th century economic theory and actually put in some work to create a modern one that accounts for the age we live in.
  - brightly-salty 4y ago
    Common solutions include appraisal (like property taxes are today) or a Vickrey auction, where we auction off the land, and the first place bidder gets it at the price of the second bid.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      Ok, but my question was for more detail on how such an appraisal would work and then what the second order effects would be. For something this big we need to think through several generations worth of downstream consequences. We already have many examples of how such revolutionary economic changes can lead to disaster and mass death when people get caught up with the spirit of the idea and don't sit down and do the hard math to work out all of the details ahead of time.

by anamax 4y ago

colinmhayes 4y ago

Taxing people for doing good things disincentivizes people from doing good things. Taxes shouldn't be a punishment for being successful. Georgists think real estate should be taxes based off the unimproved value of the land, what the owners do with the land is up to them, but if they don't use it well their taxes will put them underwater and someone else will make better use of it.

anamax 4y ago
My point is that parking lots can easily be the best use.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  If parking lots are the best use the LVT will be low enough to be negligible. If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.
  - anamax 4y ago
    > If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure. In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"? As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      I mean tbh we just have a paradigm difference. IMO there is no such thing as not enough parking lots. They're wasteful eyesores that encourage a horrible externality.
      - anamax 4y ago
        And yet, shopping centers with parking lots do more business than shopping centers without parking. You may like a life where you're dependent on delivery services for anything you can't carry to where it needs to go but the rest of us aren't willing to wear that hair shirt.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        If a shopping center needs more parking and doesn't want to pay more LVT they can build a parking garage. That way the land next door can be used more productively. If building the garage is too expensive then the land was never that valuable to begin with and they can afford the lvt.
        anamax 4y ago
        Why would they do that? You've already stated that an essential part of your plan is eliminating parking lots. You think that a world without parking lots, a world where people mostly carry stuff and otherwise rely on delivery services, is best. Aren't you going to at least followup with "people buy too much stuff anyway, so shopping centers that sell less are better."? Surely you can defend your vision instead of just giving up when someone summarizes it.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        In the end my vision doesn't matter. If you can agree that land speculation is bad you can agree that LVT is good. People should not make money for owning empty land that they do nothing with, it's really that simple.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Okay, let's assume land is expensive and you do need the parking lots. Georgism just tells you, please use the land more efficiently. Underground parking or a multi story garage become profitable as they reduce the amount of land being used and therefore reduces land value taxes you have to pay. Ethical tax avoidance!
  - anamax 4y ago
    You do know that you're substituting expensive parking for cheap, right? However, you are demonstrating that Georgist "efficient land use" is not particularly desirable. (Moreover, "efficient" land use is rarely that important.) Georgism does push towards a monoculture and a particularly horrible one at that. For example, Georgism punishes someone who puts some open space between buildings, even though open-space is clearly a good thing. As I wrote previous, Georgists confuse having an equation that they can "optimize" with having a useful idea on how to allocate resources in the real world. Yes, Georgism lets you do some calculations, but that doesn't imply that doing those calculations is worthwhile. (This is a problem with economics as a field.) And, no, the "witticisms" don't make your case. They actually argue that Georgists are dangerous fools.

imtringued 4y ago

You mean Georgists think that taxes on all of those should be $0? Yes, that is the entire point of Georgism, only the land is taxed because land can be used for anything and if the land value is higher than the shopping center can afford, then it means people want something more valuable than a shopping center there.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
> the land value I think this is the key issue that gets glossed over. Who decides the land value? How is that decision arrived at? Is it a purely bureaucratic process where the community has no say? Is it set at a federal level where it will likely be completely disconnected from the reality of a particular municipality? A lot would hinge on the answers to these questions and I'd take a bet that if this were ever implemented it would be done wrong and would result in many unforeseen negative outcomes. I think we should stop trying to revive outdated 19th century economic theory and actually put in some work to create a modern one that accounts for the age we live in.
- brightly-salty 4y ago
  Common solutions include appraisal (like property taxes are today) or a Vickrey auction, where we auction off the land, and the first place bidder gets it at the price of the second bid.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    Ok, but my question was for more detail on how such an appraisal would work and then what the second order effects would be. For something this big we need to think through several generations worth of downstream consequences. We already have many examples of how such revolutionary economic changes can lead to disaster and mass death when people get caught up with the spirit of the idea and don't sit down and do the hard math to work out all of the details ahead of time.